ADVERTISEMENT

Trump Cabinet Poll

If you could sink one nomination, which would it be?

  • RFK—HHS

    Votes: 29 27.4%
  • Hegseth—DOD

    Votes: 21 19.8%
  • Tulsi—DNI

    Votes: 28 26.4%
  • Noem—DHS

    Votes: 4 3.8%
  • None—-they’re all great!

    Votes: 24 22.6%

  • Total voters
    106
This. Completely unqualified even ignoring that she is a Russian stooge.
Completely?
  • Committee on Homeland Security (2013–2014) Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.
  • Committee on Armed Services (2013–2021) Subcommittee on Readiness. ...
  • Committee on Foreign Affairs (2013–2019) Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. ...
  • Committee on Financial Services (2019–2021)
 
Can you show me anything that supports the "tulsi is a Russian asset" claim? (Preferably one not made by some asshole that will have also claimed 90 other people were up to no good that all have been proven innocent) I'm truly baffled by this. The left is dead set she is a Russian stooge yet there are literally millions of dollars of rewards available if anyone could prove it. You seem like an intelligent enough person that if you are making the claim there must be some substance SOMEWHERE.
Please re-read my posts in this thread. I didn’t say she was a Russian asset and I doubt that could be proven. I said she was a Russian apologist (basically she takes Russia’s side) and then in another post I said she wasn’t working in America’s best interest. She doesn’t have to be working directly with Russia to be doing things that I think are against America’s interest.
 
How big is Concerned Veterans of America? I can call myself CEO of Tumorboy Realty after all.
I was CEO of the "Catfish uniting nebraskans tournament season" for 7 years. We affectionately referred to ourselves as the *****. Never made it an actual organization, but we did have a season, end of year tournament, award ceremony ect.


True story.


Found my old hat:
20241122-090447.jpg


20241122-090517.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: tumorboy
I was CEO of the "Catfish uniting nebraskans tournament season" for 7 years. We affectionately referred to ourselves as the *****. Never made it an actual organization, but we did have a season, end of year tournament, award ceremony ect.


True story.


Found my old hat:
20241122-090447.jpg


20241122-090517.jpg
Get it on the resume. Or at least some business cards.
 
Get it on the resume. Or at least some business cards.
Tough decisions had to be made, do I highlight my time as a CEO of an organization that technically didn't exist or really put the shine on my 4 years of YOY growth running a stand that sold toads in the early 90s......



It's been a ride man.....
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: tumorboy
no idea, it's part of the resume though.
According to articles I’ve seen he was executive for 4 years. In charge of about 25 employees.
Now as for the unconscious rape not being rape article. He didn’t write it. But he was the publisher. Which to me is a nod of approval of the subject matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
According to articles I’ve seen he was executive for 4 years. In charge of about 25 employees.
Now as for the unconscious rape not being rape article. He didn’t write it. But he was the publisher. Which to me is a nod of approval of the subject matter.
Like I said, his confirmation hearing will be spicy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tumorboy
This. Go big or go home. Musk says if you don't fail 20% of the time you aren't trying hard enough. I think it applies here.

A 40% fail rate will leave us better off than we are now.

I realize many are cheering for America to fail under this leadership, but I'm hopeful.

I'm most optimistic about Homan on the border, and am completely on board with the DOGE concept. Going to be a rough year for many current federal employees, but change/growth is hard. It pushes you out of your comfort zone.

Rooting for Trump to fail does not mean rooting for America to fail. They do not go hand-in-hand.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NoWokeBloke
I picked Hegseth, but to all those marking DNI, they must be the conservatives. Because I’d think the left would love Tulsi Gabbard, given her outspoken criticism of regime-change wars.. She has condemned U.S. interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, arguing that they destabilize regions, create power vacuums, and fuel terrorism.

Oh and isn't she the one who introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists Act...the plan aimed at halting U.S. funding and support for groups tied to terrorism? She's against government overreach speaking up on civil liberties and opposition to mass surveillance aligns and iirc she has also been critical of the U.S.’s support for Saudi Arabia, particularly regarding the Yemen crap.

She's also been pretty vocal in calling for an end to the "endless wars" and reallocating resources to domestic priorities—e.g., healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

Come to think of it...why on earth would Trump nominate her?
5d underwater chess.
 
There is always a chance that one of these picks will turn out be a solid choice.
(It’s like shooting a lousy round of golf… the score may be shitty, and most everything you tried to do might have failed, but somewhere along the way you probably did hit a shot or two that made you smile and say, “ I’m coming back to play again.” )
 
According to articles I’ve seen he was executive for 4 years. In charge of about 25 employees.
Now as for the unconscious rape not being rape article. He didn’t write it. But he was the publisher. Which to me is a nod of approval of the subject matter.
Plus, he's rapey.
 
There is always a chance that one of these picks will turn out be a solid choice.
(It’s like shooting a lousy round of golf… the score may be shitty, and most everything you tried to do might have failed, but somewhere along the way you probably did hit a shot or two that made you smile and say, “ I’m coming back to play again.” )
 
Plus, he's rapey.
The woman said that Hegseth, who was then a Fox News host, took her phone and blocked the door to a hotel room while at a Republican conference in California, according to the report.

Hegseth, a former National Guard officer, has denied any wrongdoing and claims the encounter was consensual. He was never arrested or charged.

The 22-page report includes interviews with the victim, a hotel staffer, a nurse and a witness who was at the hotel at the time of the alleged incident.

Trump is standing by his nominee in the wake of the report and allegations. He released a statement on Thursday that called Hegseth a "highly-respected combat veteran who will honourably serve our country".

“This report corroborates what Mr Hegseth’s attorneys have said all along: the incident was fully investigated, and no charges were filed because police found the allegations to be false," Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said.

Police were first notified of the alleged assault from an emergency room nurse.

They contacted law enforcement after treating a woman who claimed she may have been drugged and sexually assaulted while drinking with colleagues at a political gathering, according to the report from the Monterey Police Department. The report was obtained by Mediaite and other US news sites.

The nurse told police that the woman "believes that something may have been slipped into her drink as she cannot remember most of the night's events".

The woman at the centre of the claim, who is unnamed in the report, later identified the man as Hegseth.

Hegseth, a 44-year-old veteran, will be responsible for the world's most powerful military in his first political role if confirmed by the US Senate as Trump's pick for defence secretary.

The woman met Hegseth at a Republican conference where he was a featured speaker, according to the report. She said she saw Hegseth acting inappropriately with other women and confronted him at an after-party in a hotel suite.

She then went to the hotel bar with Hegseth and a group of people, at which point "things got fuzzy", she told police.

The woman told police she remembered arguing with Hegseth near the hotel pool. A hotel staffer who addressed the disturbance confirmed this to police, the report says.

The woman told police she remembered later being with Hegseth in an unknown hotel room, where she claimed he took her phone and blocked the door.

She told police she remembered "saying 'no' a lot", according to the report.

Her next memory was Hegseth hovering over her while she was lying on a couch or bed, she told police.

Hegseth told police that he was "buzzed" the night of the incident, but not drunk, according to the report. He said he met the woman at the bar and claimed she led him by his arm to his hotel room.

Police recommended the case be forwarded to the Monterey County District Attorney's Office for review. Hegseth was never arrested or charged.

Hegseth's lawyer Timothy Parlatore previously told the BBC's US partner CBS News that Hegseth paid the woman to stay quiet so he would not risk losing his job at Fox News.

The agreement deterred the woman from moving forward with a lawsuit, Mr Parlatore added. Hegseth continued to deny any wrongdoing.


 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: NoWokeBloke
Two biggest issues for SecDef IMO are recruiting/retention and preparing for possible a China conflict. On that front the Secretary of the Navy is gonna be a extremely important pick.

I like what I've heard from him on both BUT I think he might have just too much personal baggage. The confirmation hearings will be lively to put it mildly.
the personal baggage is what gave me pause after seeing the nomination.
 
the people cheering a lot of these trump picks don't realize that you need to know about a bureaucracy if you want to reform it...for this reason, not too concerned RFK and hegseth. They'll probably say some embarrassing things and institute some dumb policies, but trump and his minions have never shown the patience required to achieve real legislative change or reform

Tulsi though, if she gets her hands on the wrong piece of paper ...
I'd assume there are significant firewalls being put up by the intelligence community
What do you think Tulsi will do if she has access to all information?
 
the personal baggage is what gave me pause after seeing the nomination.
His lack of experience is an issue as well. The non profit he was CEO or executive for has about 24 employees. Awful big department to put him in charge of with that small of managerial experience.
 
Like I said, his confirmation hearing will be spicy.
Little more on the incident. Evidently he was yelling at a hotel pool staffer at 130 am. Saying he had freedom of speech. Staffer was merely asking him to quiet down. Obviously drunk.
Also was technically still married. Going through divorce. Because he got one of his employees pregnant. Did end up marrying the lucky gal.
Alleged victim went to emergency room and got rape test kit the next morning. Nurse called police and it escalated from there.
Appears this guy is mostly there for salesmen ship. Not running the day to day things.
 
Last edited:
Can you show me anything that supports the "tulsi is a Russian asset" claim? (Preferably one not made by some asshole that will have also claimed 90 other people were up to no good that all have been proven innocent) I'm truly baffled by this. The left is dead set she is a Russian stooge yet there are literally millions of dollars of rewards available if anyone could prove it. You seem like an intelligent enough person that if you are making the claim there must be some substance SOMEWHERE.

Completely?
  • Committee on Homeland Security (2013–2014) Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.
  • Committee on Armed Services (2013–2021) Subcommittee on Readiness. ...
  • Committee on Foreign Affairs (2013–2019) Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. ...
  • Committee on Financial Services (2019–2021)
Turns out this dumb beeyotch was flagged as a security threat by TSA by an algorithm looking at suspicious travel to multiple state sponsors of terrorism.
 
Please re-read my posts in this thread. I didn’t say she was a Russian asset and I doubt that could be proven. I said she was a Russian apologist (basically she takes Russia’s side) and then in another post I said she wasn’t working in America’s best interest. She doesn’t have to be working directly with Russia to be doing things that I think are against America’s interest.

Tulsi says, 'these regime change wars are counterproductive, and not in America's interest'

What is you argument against that?
How have the regime change efforts in Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Libya actually helped Americans?
I get how they helped arms merchants, but what about America?
 
Tulsi says, 'these regime change wars are counterproductive, and not in America's interest'

What is you argument against that?
How have the regime change efforts in Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Libya actually helped Americans?
I get how they helped arms merchants, but what about America?
I like how you cherry pick one thing from a vast trove of statements as if that one thing represents her entire worldview or represents the entirety of my criticism of her.

No issue with her views on regime change in the Middle East. Multiple mistakes were made by both R and D admins in the ME over the past 40+ years.
 
I like how you cherry pick one thing from a vast trove of statements as if that one thing represents her entire worldview or represents the entirety of my criticism of her.

No issue with her views on regime change in the Middle East. Multiple mistakes were made by both R and D admins in the ME over the past 40+ years.

So you agree with her on the regime change failures.

What do you disagree with her on? Which views do you take issue with?
 
So you agree with her on the regime change failures.

What do you disagree with her on? Which views do you take issue with?
Sorry to be clear I said I don’t have an issue with her views, I didn’t say I agreed with all of them…just that those views don’t rise to a stance that is against American interests. I disagree with her strongly on her historically pro-Assad views in Syria, but I don’t think it is a huge deal breaker in isolation (for example).

She has others though that I find very troubling. I strongly disagree with her take on Russia vis-a-vis Ukraine and I have seen her parrot Kremlin talking points numerous times throughout that conflict. From the mega thread know you are also carrying Putin’s water, so before you try to make this a back and forth let me just say that I get why you like her, but I have a completely different world view on Ukraine than you do.
 
Two biggest issues for SecDef IMO are recruiting/retention and preparing for possible a China conflict. On that front the Secretary of the Navy is gonna be a extremely important pick.

I like what I've heard from him on both BUT I think he might have just too much personal baggage. The confirmation hearings will be lively to put it mildly.
Mandatory, "Thank you for your service, Pete", comment. But, beyond that he has no skill set or life experience that will allow for him to lead such a massive organization as the DoD. He doesn't value women beyond their vaginas, and he seems to dislike non-whites. He'd be leading a military that has lots of women and non-whites. And, again, it's a big job. Just talking your ass off on Fox every weekend isn't the same as sitting in the big chair making decisions and leading.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NoWokeBloke
Sorry to be clear I said I don’t have an issue with her views, I didn’t say I agreed with all of them…just that those views don’t rise to a stance that is against American interests. I disagree with her strongly on her historically pro-Assad views in Syria, but I don’t think it is a huge deal breaker in isolation (for example).

In your eyes it was 'pro-Assad', but it was actually anti-regime change, with the foresight to see that the effort would empower the same kind of weird beards we saw flock to Libya and turn it into a hell hole.
Our government has acknowledged that the weapons we bought and sent into Syria went to ISIS. The whole ISIS blow-up is a direct consequence of those failed regime change efforts.

This is how intervention begets intervention, and now we have troops in Syria to this day.

She has others though that I find very troubling. I strongly disagree with her take on Russia vis-a-vis Ukraine and I have seen her parrot Kremlin talking points numerous times throughout that conflict. From the mega thread know you are also carrying Putin’s water, so before you try to make this a back and forth let me just say that I get why you like her, but I have a completely different world view on Ukraine than you do.

Can you explain how her view differs from the view of the current CIA Director, Bill Burns?

The relevant excerpts from his 2019 memoir are in the mega thread, but I'll link them here.

I'm genuinely what you see different in his warnings from hers. I've asked this question multiple times on this forum, but none of the people who are carrying Hillary's water can explain:

Below are a few excerpts from among those you can find here:
https://listeningto.org/ukraine/bill-burns-nato/

p.127:

Sitting at the embassy in Moscow in the mid-1990s, it seemed to me that NATO expansion was premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.

Applied to this first wave of NATO expansion in Central Europe, Kennan’s comments struck me as a little hyperbolic. It damaged prospects for future relations with Russia, but not fatally. Where we made a serious strategic mistake—and where Kennan was prescient—was in later letting inertia drive us to push for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, despite Russia’s deep historical attachments to both states and even stronger protestations. That did indelible damage, and fed the appetite of a future Russian leadership for getting even.

p.258:

A second problem was the question of NATO expansion, this time to Ukraine and Georgia. There had been two waves of NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War: Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary were offered membership in the second half of the 1990s, and then the Baltic states and four more Central European states a few years later. Yeltsin had gnashed his teeth over the first wave, but couldn’t do much about it. Putin offered little resistance to Baltic membership, amid all the other preoccupations of his first term. Georgia, and especially Ukraine, were different animals altogether. There could be no doubt that Putin would fight back hard against any steps in the direction of NATO membership for either state. In Washington, however, there was a kind of geopolitical and ideological inertia at work, with strong interest from Vice President Cheney and large parts of the interagency bureaucracy in a “Membership Action Plan” (MAP) for Ukraine and Georgia. Key European allies, in particular Germany and France, were dead set against offering it. They were disinclined to add to mounting friction between Moscow and the West—and unprepared to commit themselves formally and militarily to the defense of Tbilisi or Kyiv against the Russians. The Bush administration understood the objections, but still felt it could finesse the issue.

p.260:

I had done my best over the previous two and a half years to signal the brewing problems in the relationship and what might be done to head them off. I knew I was straining the patience of some in Washington, who chafed at my warnings of troubles to come when they were consumed with the challenges that had already arrived. I decided, however, that I owed Secretary Rice and the White House one more attempt to collect my concerns and recommendations in one place.

p.266:

Then Putin moved on to MAP [Membership Action Plan]. “No Russian leader could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile act toward Russia.
Even President Chubais or President Kasyanov [two of Russia’s better-known liberals] would have to fight back on this issue. We would do all in our power to prevent it.

p.458:

The expansion of NATO membership stayed on autopilot as a matter of U.S. policy, long after its fundamental assumptions should have been reassessed. Commitments originally meant to reflect interests morphed into interests themselves, and the door cracked open to membership for Georgia and Ukraine—the latter a bright red line for any Russian leadership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seminoleed
Tulsi says, 'these regime change wars are counterproductive, and not in America's interest'

What is you argument against that?
How have the regime change efforts in Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Libya actually helped Americans?
I get how they helped arms merchants, but what about America?
Seminole… how can you be so arrogant thinking that “regime changes” should benefit the United States? Do you really think that American foreign policy is universally be celebrated as a good thing throughout the world? Abd speaking of “arms merchants”… is there a bigger arms merchant in the world than the USA?
 
Seminole… how can you be so arrogant thinking that “regime changes” should benefit the United States?

Why is it 'arrogant' to think American foreign policy should benefit America? I'd settle for a rational foreign policy that quit finding and creating wars to participate it that don't benefit Americans.
Why should American policy advance something that doesn't benefit the United States?
Who do you think those wars actually benefitted?

Do you really think that American foreign policy is universally be celebrated as a good thing throughout the world?

No, but I find it illuminating how our actions are viewed abroad:

In perhaps the most startling finding, nearly half (44%) of respondents in the 53 countries surveyed are concerned that the US threatens democracy in their country; fear of Chinese influence is by contrast 38%


It's almost as if people notice when you meddle in their politics and prop up dictatorships while mouthing homilies to democracy.

Abd speaking of “arms merchants”… is there a bigger arms merchant in the world than the USA?

Nope, we prop up dictatorships around the globe for our arms merchants.
Again and again American foreign policy works to the detriment of Americans, and to the benefit of arms dealers.
 
Why is it 'arrogant' to think American foreign policy should benefit America? I'd settle for a rational foreign policy that quit finding and creating wars to participate it that don't benefit Americans.
Why should American policy advance something that doesn't benefit the United States?
Who do you think those wars actually benefitted?



No, but I find it illuminating how our actions are viewed abroad:

In perhaps the most startling finding, nearly half (44%) of respondents in the 53 countries surveyed are concerned that the US threatens democracy in their country; fear of Chinese influence is by contrast 38%

It's almost as if people notice when you meddle in their politics and prop up dictatorships while mouthing homilies to democracy.



Nope, we prop up dictatorships around the globe for our arms merchants.
Again and again American foreign policy works to the detriment of Americans, and to the benefit of arms dealers.
It is arrogant to think when a nation experiences “regime change” it should be for the benefit of the USA and not to the country itself. This is a reflection of “the Ugly American” philosophy that quite frankly got the US in up to its neck in shit, post WW2.
 
Rich Americans.

That's the real America. The America that the GOP represents. And the only Americans that really matter.

And yet the Democrats had the neocons on their side (did you forgot the Cheney family parade?), and Kamala could also claim more billionaire supporters, and won a majority from those making over $100,000, and an even larger majority of those making over $200,000.

Democrats have outsized market share among those who would be considered ‘the elites’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seminoleed
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT